Post on 12-Apr-2018
Running head: MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE
The Effect of Male Dominance on Women in the Workforce in the Executive Environment
An Honors Thesis Presented to
The Distinguished Scholars Program
Houston Christian High School
Lauren A. McGrath
Scholar Class 2017
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 2
Abstract
In the Review of Related Literature, the Scholar researched the question: what effects does male
dominance have on the executive working woman today, specifically, the psychological and
economic effects found in creating a work/life balance for the executive woman? After studying
the rise of the patriarchy since the Neolithic Revolution, the Researcher analyzed how
stereotypes and misconceptions concerning female executives resulted from male dominance in
the workforce and its continuous effects on the female’s psyche and life. The Researcher
conducted an online survey in order to test the reality of gender stereotypes and the resulting
effects and performed a case study on the accommodations of women in multiple U.S.
companies. The Researcher concluded society’s gender stereotypes unconsciously influence
people to a high degree and companies with more accommodations for women had a high net
income and net worth. The Review of Related Literature led the Scholar to examine the
psychology behind domestic abuse, specifically focusing on verbal abuse, gas-lighting, and
reason women stay in abusive relationships, and the harmful effects produced in women. The
Researcher found many victims of psychological abuse suffer from depression, social anxiety,
and Stockholm syndrome.
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 3
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, women earn as little as 77 cents to every dollar a
man earns, and women hold 14% of seats on corporate boards across America, even though
women have a higher rate of university attendance, make up 60% of the workforce and serve in
combat roles in the U.S. military (Weigel, 2013). While omnipresent in today’s society, this
phenomenon of male dominance is not new to history. Male dominance is one of the oldest and
most steadfast components of human civilization, though it did not begin this way.
During the Paleothic age, which began around 2,500,00 B.C.E. and lasted up until 10,000
B.C.E., humans were hunter-gatherers with men and women being relatively equal. Both
worked to find food: men hunted animals, and women gathered edible plants (Duiker &
Spielvogel, 2013). When the Neolithic Revolution began, introducing the domestication of crops
and animals, equality between men and women was maintained. Women participated in
agricultural labor, and in addition, performed household tasks, such as spinning, weaving, and
making pottery (Strayer, 2010; Duiker & Spielvogel, 2013). The Neolithic Revolution also
ushered in the new age of civilized societies. As new civilizations formed, so did the patriarchal
society for multiple reasons. One reason was the shifts in agricultural production: the
development of agriculture further away from the home and the use of heavier tools which made
men more suitable for the job than women. Another reason for the patriarchal society was the
reduced time men spent in the home allowing them to fulfill specialized roles in society, such as
chiefs and religious leaders (Strayer, 2010). One last reason was warfare; with military service
restricted to men, women often became the first prisoners of war and then slaves. Warfare and
female prisoners of war led to the eventual buying and selling of women (Strayer, 2010).
By Medieval times, women were restricted by men in almost all aspects of life, including
labor, marriage, and social equality. While most women throughout the world, save for the few
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 4
elite, still worked in the fields along side males, women’s labor was not valued the same as men
(Strayer, 2010; Duiker & Spielvogel, 2013; Trueman, 2015). A woman’s labor in the fields was
her duty to her family working under a dominant male, a father, brother, husband, etc.,
contributing to the family’s source of income (Wunder, H., & Whittle, J., 2010). While some
women contributed to the family income through agricultural labor, other women contributed
through independent work, domestic servitude, or by assisting the husband’s occupation.
Women were barred from entering many trades, or skilled jobs, leaving no chance for additional
wages (Trueman, 2015). A woman was, however, expected by marital law to assist the
husband’s occupation whether it was a craft or trade. Should a married woman wish to work in
an occupation independent from the husband—for example, a domestic servant— the husband’s
permission was then needed (Wunder, H., & Whittle, J., 2010). The development of the concept
of unequal wages, however, resulted in women, especially female servants, earning less than
men. In Medieval Europe, female servants earned half of the male counterparts’ overall wages
and only about 64% of what the male counterpart received for the same agricultural task
(Wunder, H., & Whittle, J., 2010; Trueman, 2015).
History
The Research in this paper will reflect how even though technology, science, and society
progressed monumentally since Medieval times, male dominance over women, specifically in
the workforce, has remained prevalent through history.
The Industrial Revolution
The Industrial Revolution began in Britain around the mid 18th century, spreading to the
rest of Europe and finally reaching the United States in the early 19th century lasting to early 20th
century (Strayer, 2010). The textile and garment industries grew, and became the primary
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 5
industry bringing women into the workforce to fill factory jobs children could not physically
carry out (Dublin, 2015). Factories readily employed women because women could be paid less
than men. Factories assumed a man’s earnings were a family’s primary source of income, while
a woman’s earnings were used for trivial matters, such as a marriage dowry (A History of
Women, 2007). Notwithstanding the lower wages, younger women felt a sense of freedom in
working due to the opportunity to live away from home in factory dormitories, earning money to
spend as desired (A History of Women, 2007).
In the late 19th century, as men left to fight in the U.S. Civil War, a vacancy in white
collar jobs emerged. Women moved to fill these vacancies becoming teachers and office clerks
(A History of Women, 2007). In the early 20th century, after a long period of suffrage, women
finally achieved the right to vote. Even with these positive steps forward, and with awareness of
male dominance in everyday life, only a few women sought to change the unfair disparity in the
work force (The 1960s-70s American, 2015).
The Great Depression
During the Great Depression women took on more responsibility, maintaining household
affairs while also managing the family’s money. While a man’s idealized role as the family
breadwinner was lost, a woman’s idealized role in the family as a housewife grew in importance.
The difficult task of stretching money over food, clothing, and household utilities fell to women
(Ware, 2015; Mathis, 1994). Furthermore, during the Great Depression women did not have the
same difficulty as men in finding jobs because female occupations were not impacted to the
same extent as male occupations. Consequently, many women resorted to taking jobs outside of
the home to provide a source of income as men looked for jobs with little success (A History of
Women, 2007; Mathis, 1994; Ware, 2015). The public frowned upon women entering the
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 6
workforce during the Great Depression because it was thought women were taking jobs from
more deserving men. As previously stated, however, this was a flawed perception (A History of
Women, 2007). Due to gender stereotypes in occupations, men would only take women’s jobs in
light factory work, as office clerks, sales people, and domestic workers as a last resort (Ware,
2015). Therefore, the bias against women’s presence in the workforce was irrational and only
succeeded in shaming women who were desperately trying to support families.
World War II
During World War II, American women entered the workforce in record numbers.
Women worked in factories to build much needed supplies and weapons for the armed forces,
and worked to support the Red Cross in sending medical aid. These factories offered higher
wages on average than traditional female jobs, leading many women to transfer to heavy factory
work (Partners in Winning, 2007; Mathis, 1994). At the beginning of the War, military leaders
only allowed women to serve via auxiliary forces, but by the end of the war, women were
serving in all military branches, though in limited roles and mainly for the purpose of freeing
men for combat. While women’s military roles were limited to office work and nursing, this
service raised women’s collective awareness of their competency (Mathis, 1994).
World War II transformed the idea of a working woman from unpopular to popular. This
period helped to change society’s belief of a woman working only in the home to women
working in many different areas and in many different capacities. As women were now such an
important part of the war effort, the image of the working woman went from shameful to
honorable. Propaganda portrayed the working woman as strong, capable, and beautiful with one
well-known example being Rosie the Riveter (Cushing, L., & Drescher, T., 2009). During the
war, there were many recruitment posters and pictures encouraging women to support and
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 7
contribute to the war effort (Partners in Winning, 2007). These posters portrayed women in
uniform as competent and confident, contributing a great service to society by helping to win the
war. The women on the posters were usually quite attractive, which made the job all the more
appealing to women (Partners in Winning, 2007; Mathis, 1994).
Post World War II
Once the War ended and men began to return to the workforce, the positive image of
working women began to diminish (Partners in Winning, 2007). Propaganda began depicting the
ideal woman as a housewife in a suburban home with a large, happy family. With the goal of
pushing women back to the home and kitchen. Society needed to be rebuilt, and women were
expected to return to the traditional role of housewife (Partners in Winning, 2007; Mathis, 1994).
While some women were happy to return to the home, many women wanted to continue working
after the war because they enjoyed the freedom and opportunity of earning a salary. Women,
however, were asked to leave or were fired so the returning men could take the respective
positions in the workforce (May, 2013). Now with a taste of freedom, women continued to enter
the workforce, albeit now relegated to part time or female stereotyped jobs (May, 2013). The
1950s’ image of the working woman was a housewife working part time merely to help support
the family for necessities (Mathis, 1994). Women’s salaries were considered to be secondary to
the husband’s, even though the average middle-class wife’s salary was the reason a family could
afford some of the new amenities offered in the post war period, such as new kitchen appliances,
more efficient vacuums, washing machines, and dishwashers along with color TVs (The 1960s-
70s American, 2015). Part-time careers in the home, such as selling Tupperware, allowed for a
flexible schedule, which in turn allowed women to fulfill the duties of homemaker (May, 2013).
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 8
Feminist Movement
Many women enjoyed working and contributing to the family’s income as well as the
benefits received from an additional salary. Women become increasingly aware of society’s
limited view of a woman’s work and of the injustice of unequal wages as it became evident
during World War II women could excel at the same jobs as men (Mathis, 1994). Women began
to realize the fight for the right to stay in the workforce was very important. Consequently, the
movement of women entering the workforce and demanding equal pay was born. The 1960’s
instituted a new feminist movement: women pushed for equality in the workplace, equal job
opportunities, and higher salaries (The 1960s-70s American, 2015). Feminists demanded laws
be enacted to ensure equal access to the work place and to eliminate gender discrimination (The
1960s-70s American, 2015). Women were successful in attaining equal wages with the Equal
Pay Act, which ensured men and women doing same job would be paid the same.
Notwithstanding the progress, however, women today are still paid less than men (Wood, 2010).
Though great progress has been made in women’s rights in and outside of the workforce,
male dominance in the workforce continues to affect women today. Given male dominance in
the business world and the impact this dominance has on preventing women from achieving
equal treatment, the Researcher must ask, what effects does male dominance have on the
executive working woman today, specifically, the psychological and economic effects found in
creating a work/life balance for the executive woman?
Review of Related Literature
While male dominance over women in history is evident through records and first hand
accounts, one can see the effects of male dominance today by looking at the female psyche and
women’s work-life balance. By first recognizing male dominance in the executive environment,
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 9
one can then see to what extent male dominance has on women internally and externally and the
role it has on a day to day basis.
The Glass Ceiling
It is a fact more women than men are graduating from college; in addition, more than half
of students enrolling in graduate school are female (Mantell, R., 2011). A White House report
revealed more women than men received a bachelor’s or graduate degree in 2013. Specifically
women aged 23 to 34 were more likely than men to be college graduates and 48% more likely to
have completed graduate school (“Women’s Participation”, 2014; Taylor, P., et al. 2008). If
women today are so driven in academics and make up 61% of the labor force, then one can look
at the percentage of women in executive leadership positions and realize there must be an
obstacle causing women to step back from pursuing executive positions (Mantell, R., 2011). A
Pew Center Social and Demographics Trends report found only 2% of CEO’s of Fortune 500
companies, the top 500 companies in the U.S., are female, and a Catalyst 2008 survey of Fortune
500 companies revealed only 15.3% of the Fortune 500 companies’ Board of Directors were
female in 2008 (Carnes, W. J., & Radojevich-Kelley, N. 2011; Eisenberg, T. D., 2010; Taylor, P.
et al., 2008). The same report also revealed as of 2008, women comprise roughly 19% of the
Congress, 12% of governors, and 24% of state legislators supporting the conclusion while
women are capable of reaching high executive positions, there is actually only a small
percentage of women achieving this level of success. The discrepancy must be due to obstacles
placed in women’s ways (Taylor, P. et al., 2008). This obstacle for women entering the
workforce is known as the “glass ceiling” an abstract, invisible barrier keeping women from
climbing the corporate ladder and achieving high success in the business world.
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 10
Balance
Few women are capable of balancing work and family matters perfectly as one seems to
be neglected more so than the other. The best chance at a harmonious work/life balance requires
a supportive partner for both work and home and flexibility in the work schedule. Without these
two basic ingredients, a woman’s employment opportunities and ability to achieve professional
success will be limited.
Support
There are multiple factors compelling women to leave the workforce. A study conducted
by Harris Interactive of highly qualified women with a high degree of education, found 17% of
those surveyed left the workforce because they did not find their job “satisfying or meaningful”;
32% of the women explained exit from the workforce was due to a spouse’s income being
sufficient for the household (Hewlett, S. A., & Luce, C. B., 2005). Many of the women stated a
job was unsatisfying because of the lack of opportunity due to the glass ceiling. A lack of
opportunity in the workplace can lead a woman to seek recognition in the home causing the exit
from the workforce. On the other hand, some women simply feel the pull of family and decide
home responsibilities dealing with children and household tasks are more fulfilling than a career
(Hewlett, S. A., & Luce, C. B., 2005).
Many women, however, do not have a spouse who is able to provide for all the
household’s needs. In addition, women enjoy working for various reasons, such as increased
income, opportunity for self-challenge, and overall enjoyment of the job (Hewlett, S. A., & Luce,
C. B., 2005). Given women want to be identified by not only family but also career, women feel
the strong pull of both and attempt the difficult work and life balance (Tajlili, M. H., 2014).
While perfect 50/50 balance between work and home life is nearly impossible, this does not stop
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 11
women from attempting to succeed in both. One of the main obstacles to achieving work/life
balance is a spouse who does not provide the needed support, and the negative effects caused by
this lack of support.
Even without children, for a married working woman to be successful, a partner who is
supportive both at work and home is necessary. Without a supportive partner encouraging a
woman in a career and putting forth effort to help in the home, a woman is less likely to succeed
and more likely to quit the workforce (Hewlett, S. A., 2002). A study by Hunter College
Sociology department and the Graduate Center of City University of New York, found 60% of
women who quit professional jobs to stay at home, stated a spouse was the reason for leaving. In
this study, the absence of a helpful husband at home caused the women to quit in order to
address domestic chores, such as cleaning, doing chores and paying bills (Stone P., 2007). With
the lack of this support, a woman will take on all neglected household tasks, believing the
husband’s career is more important (Stone P., 2007). A woman is more likely to forgo
promotion and take part-time jobs lower in skill in order to better balance work and home,
especially to compensate for an absent spouse (Tajlili, M. H., 2014). Husbands are likely to
receive more support from wives due to a wife’s willingness to be the primary caretaker of
children, tolerating long hours at work and home, even relocating for the man’s career
(Groysberg, B., & Abrahams, R., 2014). A woman’s need for spousal support becomes even
more critical when children come into play if both parents continue to work full-time and each
continue to pursue high ambitions and goals.
Schedules
A lack of a flexible work schedule is a difficult problem women face once they return to
work after maternity leave. Most job schedules align with a man whose wife stays home to
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 12
manage the household and take care of the children, rather than for a dual career family. So for a
working mother who cannot necessarily keep the expected hours, the job becomes difficult to
manage and retain. An inflexible work schedule reduces a woman’s availability in the home and
to her children (Fels A., 2004). For some dual career families hiring a nanny or housekeeper will
address this challenge, but for others this solution may not be affordable. Even when affordable,
lack of work flexibility may prevent a woman from meaningful participation in the children’s
lives and activities (Sandberg, 2013).
In the same survey conducted by Harris Interactive, 93% of the women who were “off-
ramped”, meaning they had exited the workforce, wished to return to work to be more
independent, to have a separate salary, and to give back to the community, etc. (Hewlett, S. A.,
& Luce, C. B., 2005). Note the fact of wanting to give back being a very feminine trait, yet it is
part of the reason why women wish to return to the workforce, giving credence to not a woman’s
femininity, but society’s idea of femininity which gets in the way. Society sees an ideal woman
as one dimensional, taking care of her family, while in real life, a woman is multi-dimensional
seeking to benefit society by contributing to the workforce, working to positively impact the
community, as well as taking care of the family (Hewlett, S. A., & Luce, C. B., 2005; Fels, A.,
2004). The women in the study by Harris Interactive explained how work gives “structure to
their lives, boosts self-esteem, and confers status…in their communities”. Reasons for wanting
to return to the workforce are multi-dimensional, linking a woman’s desire for work/life balance
to the positive effects work has on the female psyche (Hewlett, S. A., & Luce, C. B., 2005).
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 13
Psychological Effects
Society’s culturally ingrained concept of femininity hinders women’s ability to succeed
in a male-dominated workplace. In addition, the backlash from not conforming to society’s
concept of femininity results in the loss of female self-confidence and, in turn, ambition.
Societal Stereotypes
Stereotypes are created by society’s values to set suitable expectations for each gender
and are held up as an example of how one should act. When people do not follow society’s
behavior standards, society voices its disapproval (Heilman, E. M., et al. 2004). The executive
environment values and admires traditionally male traits such as assertiveness, determination,
and confidence particularly in men. While the executive environment values traditionally female
traits such as honesty, trustworthy, and great social skills, other traditionally female traits such as
being fragile, emotional, and manipulative are highly discouraged. The heavy emphasis on
excluding these seemingly detrimental female traits from the executive environment helped to
foster society’s preference for males in executive leadership positions. (Carnes, W. J., &
Radojevich-Kelley, N. 2011). When a woman achieves success in a traditionally male position
using male traits, society views this as violating gender norms, and thus a great misdeed to
society has occurred. A study by Columbia University and New York University shows how
society only criticizes and negatively portrays women who have defied gender stereotypes by
taking traditional male occupations. A woman’s success in an occupation deemed feminine by
society is perfectly acceptable. The study further demonstrated how successful women in female
or gender-neutral jobs did not provoke the same criticism as successful women in male oriented
jobs (Heilman, E. M., et al. 2004). In conclusion, traditional male traits, such assertiveness and
ambition, are valued in male leadership but not in female leadership (Heilman, E. M., et al.
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 14
2004). The negative view of females who imitate male traits, such as assertiveness and ambition,
stems from society raising both girls and boys to value submissive qualities in girls and latter in
women (Tolman, D. L., & Porche, M. V. 2000).
Feminine Stereotype
One of the main psychological barriers hindering women in the workforce is society’s
concept of femininity. When women go against society’s preordained concept of femininity in
order to achieve success or recognition, they hit the glass ceiling. The effects society’s standard
of femininity has on women carry over into the workplace in two ways: behaviorally and
professionally (Fels, A., 2004).
The easiest way to see how society ingrains a standard for feminine behavior is through
the Bem-Sex-Role Inventory test which is devised to psychologically analyze what gender
people identify with through the choice of adjectives society commonly deems as masculine,
feminine, or neutral (Tolman, D. L., & Porche, M. V., 2000). In this test, feminine adjectives
include shy, affectionate, yielding, cooperative, sensitive and demure (Tolman, D. L., & Porche,
M. V. 2000; Fels, A., 2004). Ingrained traits from childhood explain why most women are not
overly assertive and feel the need to divert attention or recognition away from themselves and
onto others, thus conforming to society’s ideal of supporting and obeying the husband (P., S., &
Thomas, I., 1995). The list of feminine traits makes sense when one considers girls are taught
from a young age to cooperate, play nice, and be supportive, subservient and dependent, relying
on emotions. This begins at a very young age through play and education (P., S., & Thomas, I.,
1995). A study recorded at Council of Weill Medical College of Cornell University, found
teachers paid more attention to boys than girls from pre-school through college. The teachers
chose boys to answer questions more often than girls and praised boys more regularly. During
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 15
the formative pre-school years, teachers gave boys more individual direction and instruction in
addition to more physical/verbal rewards (Fels, A., 2004). Factors affecting the study’s results
have to be taken into account and should not be overlooked. It is stereotypically agreed girls are
more polite and likely to follow instruction, which why teachers in this study gave more attention
to boys who, stereotypically, are more rambunctious and distracted. The teacher would expect
girls to behave, and in turn deal with boys who, the teacher would assume, needed discipline.
Another possible reason for the results is the amount of boys in a classroom setting: if there are
more boys than girls, then there is a higher probability of a boy being chosen to answer a
question. Recognition in the classroom at an early age factors into the executive working
environment because men as boys were pressed to share opinions and ideas while girls were
pressured, or rather expected, to be polite and quiet. Society’s standard of femininity negatively
impacts women in the executive environment because ingrained feminine behavior and traits can
hinder women in various ways. One such example is when a woman’s ingrained individual traits
show up in group/team settings. A study conducted by New York University and Colby College
found society taught middle-class, white girls to be well-mannered ladies, “play nice”, and be
“good little girls”. As a result, the study found the girls lose the ability to self-advocate and
communicate “their authentic thoughts and feelings” (Tolman, D. L., & Porche, M. V., 2000).
These traits of communication and self-advocacy are essential to career building and working
with co-workers on projects. When women enter the workforce and apply the lessons learned as
a child, such as taking turns and listening to others, those childhood lessons are for the most part
overlooked and undervalued.
One specific individual trait ingrained in young girls that does not factor well into the
executive environment is selflessness. Women are traditionally expected to give care and
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 16
affection to family members, but in today’s society, are also expected to give, or relinquish,
recognition to co-workers. Society expects women to bypass opportunities for recognition in the
workplace to pursue recognition in the home. A woman must first place everyone else’s needs
above her own, especially before her own ambitions (Fels, A., 2004). When a woman does not
relinquish recognition, but instead strives for it by asking for promotions or climbing the
corporate ladder, the woman’s femininity is heavily criticized. Due to the societal pressure to
bypass recognition in order to be more feminine, women feel guilty about asking for recognition
in the form of promotions, money, time off, etc. Ironically, a survey by Harris Interactive
recorded 51% of the women surveyed, all of whom had earned a form of undergraduate,
graduate, or professional degree, stated recognition from employers was extremely important
(Fels A., 2004; Hewlett, S. A., & Luce, C. B., 2005). Women are faced with a choice of either
femininity or ambition. While a woman receives positive social responses for following the
feminine ideal of being demure and restrained, a woman who exemplifies male traits as a means
to be taken seriously is scorned and deprived of recognition (Fels, A., 2004). When a woman
does not receive any recognition, then no point is seen in accomplishing set goals, and the goals
become moot. A lack of recognition eventually erodes a woman’s ambition.
Ambition
Ambition can be defined as seeking to master a skill in hopes of some form of social
reward, usually positive recognition or acknowledgement (Fels A., 2004). The social rewards
women receive for mastering skills are less than those received by men. Professional women
receive less pay, more stilted and less predictable praise, and fewer opportunities than a
professional man (Fels, A., 2004). By contrast, a professional male will be paid according to the
market, receive consistent praise, and new opportunities. The media’s negative image of the
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 17
business woman being stressed, on the brink of exhaustion, and irresponsible towards family
matters reinforces negative female recognition (Fels A., 2004).
In contrast to the workplace, women receive positive recognition through praise and
compliments stemming from motherhood. As a result, women are tempted and pressured into
downsizing professional ambition for family out of guilt or society’s preference for the more
traditional role (Hewlett, S. A., & Luce, C. B., 2005). Society’s constant demand for a woman to
subordinate her needs and curb ambition out of a respect to others, whether it is a co-worker, a
husband, or the family, adds to the pressure of downsizing ambition (Fels, A., 2004). In a survey
conducted by Harris Interactive, 44% of the women polled left the workforce to take care of
family matters, supporting the idea women leave the workforce in pursuit of more positive social
rewards associated with family and motherhood (Hewlett, S. A., & Luce, C. B., 2005).
To master a skill, a person must have the self-confidence in his or her ability to succeed
(Fels, A., 2004). This proves to be an issue for women because women tend to have less self-
confidence and underestimate personal abilities. Women internalize feedback more than men,
directly correlating it to skill level; if the feedback is negative, a woman will believe there is a
deficiency in skills or abilities (Fels, A. 2004). Because of a doubt in abilities, women will credit
success on other factors such as luck, supporters, or hard work, often downplaying
accomplishments onto others instead. This “female modesty” stems from society’s enforcement
of gender roles; women humble themselves or refrain from bragging or showing off in order to
protect the self-esteem of others (Beyer S., 1998). When women discredit themselves due to
feelings of guilt or embarrassment, they develop a “fear of success” because to pursue ambition
is to loose one’s femininity and in turn loose social acceptance (P., S., & Thomas, I., 1995).
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 18
Ambition is the mastery of a skill in the hope of social rewards i.e. recognition, praise,
and/or respect. It is logical to claim mastery of a skill leads to success, which in turn leads to
rewards. For women, however, while mastery of a skill leads to success, success does not
necessarily lead to reward, especially if the reward is likeability posing a problem as by nature
people wish to be liked (Fels A., 2004; Heilman, E. M., et al. 2004). When a woman achieves
success in a male-oriented occupation or position and, by consequence, is not liked, the psyche
suffers. In addition to feeling hurt and insecure, women can become stressed and confused over
why ambition and success is negatively correlated with likeability for them yet positively
correlated for men. While men who achieve high levels of success are seen as competent, a good
leader, and desirable boss or co-worker, women in the same top positions are still seen as
competent in results but “bitchy”, “pushy”, and generally disliked in personality (Heilman, E.
M., et al. 2004).
A study by the Department of Psychology of New York University in collaboration with
the Department of Organization and Leadership from Columbia University supports the position
women who adopt the male trait of ambition are disliked and viewed negatively, which in turn
affects the ability to succeed. The study found better liked employees received promotions over
disliked ones even when the competency levels were in favor of the disliked employees (Carnes,
W. J., & Radojevich-Kelley, N., 2011; Fels, A., 2004). Another study conducted by the
Columbia Business School supports a similar position that women who adopt the male trait of
ambition are disliked. In this study, researchers presented to college students an executive who
had a high level of competency, experience, and influential connections. Half of the college
students were told the executive was a female while the other half were told the executive was a
male. The college students were then polled about their impression of the executive. The
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 19
students thought the male and female executive were equally competent, but the male executive
seemed more appealing while the female executive seemed “pushy” and not the type of person
one would hire or want work under (McGinn, K. L., and Tempest N., 2000). The negative
correlation for women between success and likeability, in addition to feminine stereotypes,
present barriers to women trying reach executive positions. The barriers increase the disparity in
amount of male executives verses female executives, which, in turn, increases the wage gap
between the genders on average.
Economics
Wage Gap
In 1963, Congress passed the Equal Pay Act to make sure workers who performed equal
tasks were paid equivalent wages. In 1964, the Civil Rights Act was passed with the purpose of
eliminating discriminatory employment based on race, religion, sex, etc. Though the wage gap
decreased from 40% in 1970 to 19% in 2009, women were still earning on average 80% of a
man’s full wages (Carnes, W. J., & Radojevich-Kelley, N. 2011). Though laws were passed to
ensure equal pay for equal work and the wage gap improved considerably, companies today still
find loopholes to bypass equal pay in favor of men.
In the executive environment, female CEOs earn 46% less than male counterparts after
taking into account age, education, sex, etc. By doing so, a company can pay women less
without technically violating the equal pay for equal work act (Carnes, W. J., & Radojevich-
Kelley, N. 2011). Even so, a 2012 report from the American Association of University Women
found even after accounting for college majors, economic sectors, work experience, GPA, age,
and marital status, 7% of the difference of wages between male and female college graduates
“was still not explained”. In addition, 10 years after graduation, the unexplained percentage
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 20
increased to 12% (American Association of University, W., 2014). One possible explanation
could be companies assigning different occupation titles to men and women who perform similar
work. Companies try to excuse this illegal act by insisting the work is different in some form
and thus of different value to the company (Tomei, M., Olney, S., & Oelz, M., 2013).
Gender stereotyping of jobs contributes to the wage gap and adds to the disparity between
the average male and female wages. For example, more women become teachers and since
teachers’ salaries are less than other graduate salaries, the overall average of female wages is
smaller by comparison (American Association of University, W., 2014).
Economic Consequences
Between 1967 and 2010, the percentage of mothers who brought home at least a fourth of
the family’s income increased from 28% to 64% (American Association of University, W.,
2014). Women with children, however, are less likely to be hired by employers and are offered a
lower salary compared to a childless woman (American Association of University, W., 2014;
Carnes, W. J., & Radojevich-Kelley, N. 2011). There is an indirect relationship to the amount of
children a woman has and amount the salary decreases. More children means more time outside
of the workplace, so less time spent at work will result in a decrease in wages. Moreover, wages
decrease every time the woman re-enters the workplace from a maternity leave (Hewlett, S. A.,
2002). When a woman re-enters the workforce after taking time for personal matters, such as a
maternity leave, the woman’s salary upon re-entry reduces by about 28%. As a woman spends
more time away from the workplace, the salary decreases accordingly (Hewlett, S. A., & Luce,
C. B., 2005; Hewlett, S. A., 2002).
While it is easy for a woman to leave the workforce once she is ready to have a baby, the
re-entry proves to be difficult due to the repercussions faced from taking time for family
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 21
(Hewlett, S. A., & Luce, C. B., 2005). In a survey conducted by Harris Interactive, 93% of the
professional women surveyed were homemakers wishing to return to the workforce; however,
only 74% were able to do so. Of the 74% who returned, only 40% actually returned to “full-
time, professionals jobs” (Hewlett, S. A., & Luce, C. B., 2005). The chances of a woman
returning to a full-time professional career are greatly diminished after taking an “off-ramp” to
deal with personal or family matters.
As previously stated, women’s affiliation with home life affects wages and possible
promotions especially because the workplace is traditionally male while the home is traditionally
female. Due to women’s association with the home, many employers assume a working mother’s
main priority and focus is the family resulting in the working mother being less engrossed in
work. Based on gender stereotypes, a woman’s attachment to the home can lead employers to
presume the woman’s competency decreases due to distractions from home responsibilities
(Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & Lemmon, G., 2009).
On a whole, stereotypical female traits do not align with the characterization of an
effective leader, or what society presumes to be an effective leader. This preconceived notion
can negatively impact a woman’s ability to move up the corporate ladder. Assuming a woman,
especially a working mother, will exercise female traits and therefore not act as an effective
leader, managers will promote a man over the woman (Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & Lemmon,
G., 2009). An employer assumes a woman’s commitment to the job will deteriorate should she
have to split time between work and children. All of these assumptions and stereotypes may lead
managers to bypass a woman in regards to promotion (Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & Lemmon,
G., 2009).
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 22
Case Study
Male dominance affects executive working women psychologically and economically
especially when work/life balance pushes many women to try and juggle both. While spousal
support and nannies can ease the stress of work/life balance on a working women, neither will
help if the company does not support the woman’ career. A woman who wants to rise up the
corporate ladder successfully must find a company that aims not only for the success of the
company but also of the woman. For the purpose of extending research on the psychological and
economic effects found in women attempting to create a work/life balance, the Researcher
studied specific companies that succeeded in or fell short of supporting a woman’s professional
career. The Researcher then sought to determine whether there was any correlation between a
companies’ support of working women and its overall success rate. After considering many
different options, the Researcher chose to compare IBM, Johnson and Johnson, Wal-Mart,
Microsoft, and Bank of America. The Researcher focused on the amount of schedule flexibility,
the quality and degree of mentorship, the extent of “female empowerment programs”, and any
offering of continued education to determine how well the companies supported female workers.
The companies’ net income and national standing were chosen as indicators of the companies’
overall success. The Researcher also decided to include the amount of gender discrimination
complaints or lawsuits for each of the companies in an attempt to see whether the companies
fulfilled any claimed female empowering ideals. The Researcher conducted this case study with
the goal of finding which companies out of the five provide the best working environment and
support system for an executive working women and whether the companies’ support of its
female employees affected its overall success.
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 23
Conclusion
Male dominance significantly impacts women in the workplace in regard to work/life
balance, psychological effects and economic effects. Society pressures women to conform to the
image of a nurturing homemaker and men to act as the main provider for the family resulting in
an unequal representation of genders in the executive environment. Whether feeling the pull of
family life or the push of gender bias and glass ceiling in the workforce, many women leave the
workforce and downsize ambition. The societal expectations for women are cause for the wage
gap between male and female wages and results in multiple economic consequences for women.
After reviewing research conducted and analyzed by other scholars on the topic of male
dominance in the workforce, the Researcher began to conduct surveys and case studies to further
understand this topic. The Researcher focused on the extent and reality of gender stereotypes as
well as how different companies approach gender issues.
Methodology
Purpose
While gathering information, the Researcher found common forms of methodology used
were surveys and case studies. The Researcher wanted to determine what traits people valued
most in an executive leader and whether the effects of gender stereotypes could be removed from
the results. In order to carry out this research, the Scholar created a survey to see how people
would rank traits commonly seen as male or female without being explicitly coded as male or
female. The Researcher also conducted a case study to determine whether accommodations for
working women affect or, at the least, have an association with a company’s overall success.
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 24
Null hypothesis
When given a list of traits commonly valued in executive
working positions, a majority of working Texans will favor the
commonly female traits.
Case study
A comparison of how different U.S. companies accommodated
executive working women and how the accommodations or lack
of them affected the overall success rate of the company.
Participants and Sampling Procedures
The survey was sent out to Texas residents with prior experience with the workplace. In
the case study, the Researcher examined texts and artifacts available to the public to compare
Walmart, Microsoft, 21st Century Fox, Johnson and Johnson, and Bank of America. The
researcher selected 21st Century Fox because of the scandal it had recently. The Researcher
selected Walmart because of its mixed appearances; it seemed to uphold gender equality and
female empowerment programs but multiple lawsuits/complaints seemed to indicate otherwise.
The Researcher selected Johnson and Johnson, Microsoft, and Bank of America because they
were all listed by Ford as top companies for women and had varying degrees of diversity or
inclusion initiatives.
Research Design
The research gathering evidence against the null was quantitative and descriptive
collected via an electronic Google form. The case study consisted of qualitative research,
comparing multiple companies to see if employee accommodations, specifically those directed
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 25
towards women, affected the companies’ success. The researcher collected data through an
examination of texts and artifacts.
Experimental Manipulations/Interventions/Instrumentation
The Researcher assessed whether the bias for male over female traits in the business
environment would not hold true if the traits were not explicitly associated with one gender or
the other. The Researcher conducted structured interviews sent out electronically. The positive
female traits tested were:
• Good social skills
• Collaborative
• Supportive/Mentoring
• Willing to Compromise
• Honesty
The negative female traits tested were:
• Emotional
• Manipulative
• Passive
• Cold
The positive male traits tested were:
• Ambitious
• Direct
• Risk-taking
• Assertive
• Confident
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 26
The negative male traits tested were:
• Stubborn
• Aggressive
• Arrogant
• Competitive
The Researcher used the same ranking system to compare the positive traits and the
negative traits. The survey asked an individual to rank each trait numerically without repeating
ranks. After the Researcher received responses, the Researcher calculated an overall composite
score per respondent of the positive male and female traits and the negative male and female
traits. For each respondent the difference between the male and female composite score was
recorded with a positive difference indicating an overall preference for male traits and a negative
difference indicating an overall preference for female traits.
The Researcher used not only the various companies’ websites, but also other sources
containing pertinent information such as statistical records of companies’ gross income and
information about gender discrimination law suits. The Researcher also used sources from
documents in public spheres in which actual employees discussed individual companies and the
pros and cons. The Researcher used a spreadsheet to compare the different companies and their
accommodations, lack of accommodations, and any complaints or lawsuits concerning
accommodations or gender discrimination. On the spreadsheet, the Researcher indicated
whether a company had an accommodation or not. The variables measured were:
• Female empowerment programs
• Schedule flexibility
• Mentorship
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 27
• Continued education offered
• Net income
• Gender discrimination complaints
• Lawsuits concerning accommodations
With the exception of net income, the variables were qualitative. The spreadsheet was rather
simple and the researcher indicated whether a company had an indicated qualitative variable or
not and listed the quantitative variable.
Data Collections
The Researcher received survey responses through a survey created through Google
forms. On November 10th, an email was sent out as a reminder to various people and
respondents, thanking them and asking them to fill out the survey if they had not done so yet.
There were data checks for the case study on October 12th, 19th, and 25th 2016. The Researcher
collected data for the case study from September 9th to November 30th.
Data analysis
When examining the survey results, the Researcher recorded means and standard
deviations of composite scores of male and female traits and the difference between composite
scores per individual. The Researcher used two matched pairs t-tests: one for positive traits and
one for negative traits. For the case study, The Scholar measured frequency, comparing the
presence or absence of multiple variables over multiple cases.
Ethical Consideration
The Researcher did not ask for names of the people who participated and all responses
were anonymous. The introduction of the survey included a statement, which read,
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 28
“Participation in this survey is purely voluntary and all
responses will be anonymous.”
The Researcher did not approach any humans for information in the case study so no
consideration was needed.
Bias
The format of the ranking system might have confused multiple survey respondents. This
confusion could alter the overall ranking of the traits if misunderstood. The online survey also
excluded those without access to Internet and those who could not speak English. In the
population of the case study, the Researcher examined only five companies, leaving out other
U.S. companies. Including these other U.S. companies which might consist of different ideals
and accommodations might have led the Researcher to different results for the case study. Only
publicly released information was available to the Researcher so the case study excludes any
private internal files from the companies.
Assumptions
The Researcher assumed people responded honestly to the survey. When examining
online articles, the Scholar assumed the information on the companies’ websites and the
anonymous reviews from customers were true. The Researcher assumed the companies carried
out any female empowering programs, initiatives, or accommodations cited on the websites.
Limitations
Participants at a national and international level were left out of the survey population,
but the Researcher could have included respondents at a national level. The Researcher could
have created a null, which tested how participants would react to two identical candidates whose
only difference was gender. If given unlimited time and resources, the Researcher would want to
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 29
send out the survey at a national level to obtain responses from participants in multiple different
states. The Researcher could have included studies on men’s accommodations in companies and
how it compared to women’s accommodations, but chose to focus solely on women. If given
unlimited time and resources, the Researcher would have liked to research foreign companies
and the different female accommodations in comparison to American companies.
Findings
Sample
As seen in Figure 1A below, the Researcher’s sample reported the majority of
respondents had a bachelor’s or master’s degree and a sizeable number of respondents 16.7%
having some college credit but no diploma.
Figure 1A. Education Level of Respondents
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 30
Of the sample population, 70% was employed full-time; 11.7% was employed part time,
and approximately 18.3% was non-working due to various reasons as seen in figure 1B below.
Figure 1B. Employment Status of Respondents
Of the sample, 58.3% was female and 41.7% was male as seen in Figure 1C below.
Figure 1C. Gender Ratio of Respondents to Survey
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 31
For the case study, the Researcher looked at Johnson and Johnson, Walmart, 21st Century
Fox, Bank of America, and Microsoft. Johnson and Johnson was established in 1886 selling
consumer healthcare products and currently has 127,100 employees and a net worth of $71.15
billion. Walmart was established in 1962 as a retail store selling a wide range of consumer
products and currently has 2.3 million employees with a net worth of $80.55 billion. The 21st
Century Fox Corporation formally split from its parent company, News Corporation, in 2013 and
is a mass media company with 20,500 employees and a net worth of $17.22 billion. Founded in
1930, Bank of America is a financial services company of 210,516 employees with a net worth
of $256.2 billion. Microsoft, a computer software, hardware, and electronics company, was
established in 1975 and has 113,616 employees with a net worth of $71.99 billion. A summary
of this information can be found in the table below.
Companies’ Background Information
Companies Johnson and Johnson Walmart 21st Century Fox
Date Founded 1886 1962 2013
Business Types Consumer Healthcare
Products
Consumer Products/
Retail Mass Media
Employee # 127,100 2.3 million 20,500
Net Worth $71.15 billion $80.54 billion $17.22 billion
Companies Bank of America Microsoft
Date Founded 1930 1975
Business Type Banking/ Financial
Services
Computer Software/
hardware/ electronics
Employee # 210,516 113,616
Net Worth $256.2 billion $71.99 billion
Figure 1D. Companies’ Background Information
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 32
Survey Findings/Observations
As previously stated, the survey asked respondents to rank ten positive executive traits, five of
which were considered male and five of which were considered female.
The positive female traits were:
• Good social skills
• Collaborative
• Supportive/Mentoring
• Willing to Compromise
• Honesty
The positive male traits were:
• Ambitious
• Direct
• Risk-taking
• Assertive
• Confident
The survey was based on a ranking system where a ranking of one meant a trait was most
important and a ranking of ten meant a trait was least important resulting in a lower score
indicating a greater importance. The Researcher totaled each respondent’s total score for
positive female traits and total score for positive male traits. The Researcher then found the
average positive female score and the average positive male score overall as seen in Figure 2A.
Figure 2A. Averages of Composite Scores of Positive Traits of Respondents
The lower composite score for the positive female indicated people often found positive
female traits to be more important or valued. The Researcher also paired each respondent’s
0
10
20
30
40
Female Composite Score Male Composite
Score
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 33
composite positive male and female score and found the difference by subtracting the male
composite from the female. The average difference was -4.1.
The survey also asked respondents to rank eight negative executive traits, four of which
were considered male and four of which were considered female.
The negative female traits were:
• Emotional
• Manipulative
• Passive
• Cold
The negative male traits were:
• Stubborn
• Aggressive
• Arrogant
• Competitive
The survey was based on a ranking system where a ranking of one meant a trait was most
tolerable and a ranking of ten meant a trait was least tolerable resulting in a lower score
indicating a higher tolerance rate. The Researcher totaled each respondent’s total score for
negative female traits and total score for negative male traits. The Researcher then found the
average negative female score and the average negative male score overall as seen in Figure 2B.
Figure 2B. Averages of Composite Scores of Negative Traits of Respondents
0
5
10
15
20
25
Female Composite Score Male Composite Score
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE
34
The Researcher also paired each respondent’s composite negative male and female score and
found the difference by subtracting the male composite score from the female composite score.
The average difference was 2.92.
The ranking system was based upon a numerical scale. For positive traits, one meant
most important and ten meant least important. For negative traits one meant most tolerable and
eight meant least tolerable. Upon observing the rankings for positive traits, the Researcher found
honesty, upon receiving 23 ones, scored the highest for being most important, and ambitious,
receiving 11 tens, scored least important executive trait. Among the negative traits, the
Researcher found manipulative scored the highest for least tolerable, with 23 eights, and
competitive scored highest for most tolerable with 38 ones. A majority of respondents put no
preference for the preferred gender of their manager.
When conducting the case study, the Researcher investigated the five companies for
multiple variables including female empowerment programs, schedule flexibility, mentorship,
continued education, gender discrimination complaints, and lawsuits concerning
accommodations and discrimination. Concerning lawsuits, the Researcher decided a realistic
indicator would be more than one lawsuit. To best indicate the different variables across the
companies and the comparison between the companies, the Researcher decided to create a chart
indicating whether had a variable or not. In the chart, “X” indicates a company has that variable
and a blank space indicates a company does not have the variable or there was no information
found on that variable for that company.
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE
35
Companies’ Accommodations, Complaints, and Lawsuits
Companies: Johnson & Johnson Walmart Microsoft Bank of
America
21st
Century
Fox
Female Empowerment
Programs
X X X
Schedule Flexibility X
Mentorship X X X X
Continued Education X X X
Gender Discrimination
Complaints
X X
Lawsuits concerning
accommodations
X X
Figure 2C. Companies’ Accommodations, Complaints, and Lawsuits
The Researcher found Johnson and Johnson had two personal female empowerment
programs and a mentorship program for employees while also supporting outside groups pushing
for female advocacy in the workplace. Walmart, while offering mentorship programs and
continued education to its employees, had at least over twelve complaints of gender
discrimination and inflexible work schedules. It also had five lawsuits filed by employees
concerning gender discrimination. Microsoft had at least four programs centered on female
empowerment, mentorship, and continued education, and was involved in three outside programs
encouraging female leadership. Bank of America was noted to be exceedingly flexible with
work schedules and had female empowerment programs, continued education, and mentorship.
21st Century Fox was a longtime supporter of Women’s Sports Foundation and co-launched a
contest meant to encourage young women in pursuing careers in science, technology,
engineering, and math. Despite this, however, the Researcher found little to no evidence of
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE
36
accommodations and support systems within 21st Century Fox. The Researcher did find at least
two instances of discrimination complaints and lawsuits against 21st Century Fox.
The Researcher found the net income for each company in order to indicate overall
success. Johnson and Johnson had a net income of $15.4 billion; Walmart had a net income of
$14.69 billion dollars. Microsoft had a net income of $16.79 billion. Bank of America had a net
income of $15.89 billion dollars and 21st Century Fox had a net income of $8.3 billion.
Analysis
The Researcher tested this null hypothesis: when given a list of traits commonly valued in
executive working positions, a majority of working Texans will favor the commonly female
traits. The hypothesis test used for the survey was a matched-pairs t-test. The Researcher did
this test for both the positive executive and the negative executive traits. For the positive traits,
the P-value was approximately .99 so the data were consistent with the null. Therefore, for
positive executive traits, the null was retained. For the negative traits the P-value was .0004.
Due to the low P-value the Researcher had statistically significant evidence against the null
hypothesis. Therefore, the null was rejected for negative executive traits. The null hypothesis
was retained for positive traits and rejected for negative traits, meaning the researcher found
evidence that for executive positions a majority of working Texans favor positive female traits
over positive male traits and negative male traits over negative female traits.
Based on the Researcher’s findings, Bank of America and Microsoft seemed to be the
best contenders out of the five in regards to which company would best support an executive
working women. Also despite the discrimination complaints and the possibility of inflexible
work schedules, Walmart still made sizeable efforts to support mentorship, training, and
continued education programs for women around the world. Johnson and Johnson’s female
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE
37
empowerment programs offset the lack of evidence of schedule flexibility. All the companies,
with the exception of 21st Century Fox, had at least one of the accommodations. Based on this
Researcher’s studies alone, one could loosely rank these five companies in this order based off of
the degree of accommodations:
1. Bank of America
2. Microsoft
3. Johnson and Johnson
4. Walmart
5. 21st Century Fox
The companies implementing more accommodations had fewer lawsuits and complaints and had
a higher net income. Bank of America and Microsoft implemented multiple accommodations for
women and had the highest net incomes at $15.89 billion. The companies lacking in
accommodations had more lawsuits and gender discrimination complaints and a generally lower
net income. Walmart had four lawsuits and the second lowest net income at $14.69 billion and
21st Century Fox had two lawsuits and the lowest net income at $8.3 billion. Both Walmart and
21st Century Fox had minimal accommodations.
Discussion
After concluding the findings, the Researcher found the analysis of the survey agreed
with the Review of Related Literature. As previous research has shown, society upholds
stereotypes and expectations for how people should act according to gender and the environment,
which is, in this case, an executive environment. These stereotypes and expectations carry over
into how people perceive leaders; while people value positive traits associated with both genders,
people are much more inclined to tolerate the negative male traits, such as competitiveness, than
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE
38
the negative female traits, such as emotionality. Society’s stereotypes of the executive
environment and executive offices are male-oriented, so it is natural people look down upon
negative female traits but excuse the negative male traits. When questioned about the negative
traits, the male score was lower indicating a higher tolerance for negative male traits than female
ones. Though all the negative traits are considered relatively undesirable, due to the male
dominated executive environment, people are much more tolerant of the negative male traits.
Over time, this tolerance became acceptable, which left people focusing only on the negative
female traits. Though people value female traits on a whole, the negative stereotype of female
traits stems from the overemphasis negative female traits.
As previously stated, the Researcher’s survey listed positive and negative traits
considered to be either male or female. Due to Researcher’s omittance of the gender associated
with each trait, respondents were able to rank the traits with considerably less influence. This
gender blind survey resulted in respondents collectively placing more value on positive female
traits, and, thus, allowed the Researcher to reject the null hypothesis. The rejection of the null
contradicts with the Review of Related Literature. Women face many obstacles and challenges,
psychological and physical, when attempting to climb the corporate ladder and succeed in the
executive environment. If positive female traits were so highly valued, the amount of hardship
women face in the corporate world would be considerably less. One could attribute this
discrepancy to the nature of the survey. The gender blind survey allowed for respondents to
view traits without a gender tied to each trait, which potentially decreased the chance of a
stereotype influencing a respondent’s answers. The Review of Related Literature discusses how,
in society, people are constantly under influence from society’s stereotypes and culture. It could
be society’s stereotype of men in leadership roles is what prevents women from achieving the
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE
39
same rate of success, not necessarily an apparent preference for male traits overall. Society’s
greater dislike for negative female traits over male traits could also be preventing women from
achieving success.
Though the Researcher’s survey was gender blind, future scholars could investigate into
whether respondents of surveys respond differently when prompted of stereotypes. While this
would be interesting in furthering gender studies, it could also be applied in studies on the
stereotypes of minorities and whether stereotypes influence minority groups to the same extent
or in different ways. Future research worth considering is research into how the specific traits
the Researcher tested impact people in executive environment on a daily basis.
One question these findings might pose is how much stereotypes affect people and daily
life. With so many influences from so many different sources, it is no wonder people easily stop
forming individual beliefs. Often times people’s beliefs are not self-determined but simply based
off society’s stereotypes. While one can acknowledge opinions and viewpoints from multiple
sources, basing one’s personal beliefs and worldview entirely on the experience and opinion of
others is not a wise decision. Becoming aware of the society around oneself and how it can and
will influence people, whether right or wrong, is important as seen through history.
In the case study, the Researcher compared the various degrees of accommodations the
companies Johnson and Johnson, Walmart, Microsoft, Bank of America, and 21st Century Fox
provided to their employees. The Researcher generally found companies with more
accommodations had higher net income, fewer complaints, and, in some cases, a higher net
worth. Bank of America was one of the companies fitting this conclusion: it had the second
highest net income and the highest net worth. One accommodation Bank of America
emphasized was its schedule flexibility for all its employees. The Researcher found a study by
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE
40
Harris Interactive in which many of the women interviewed who had worked at Johnson and
Johnson praised the company for its option for reduced hours (Hewlett, S.A., & Luce, C. B.,
2005). Johnson and Johnson also had a relatively high net income and few to no lawsuits or
gender discrimination or accommodation complaints. In the Review of Related Literature, the
Researcher found how inflexible work schedules is an obstacle many women, especially those
with family, faced upon re-entry. With a flexible work schedule, a woman is less likely to leave
the workforce to deal with pressure at home and will have more opportunities to move up the
corporate ladder. A better work life balance can also improve a woman’s psychological
condition because the woman will not be overstressed about balancing home life and work.
These findings could impact the companies’ policies concerning diversity and inclusion.
Consumers could change their mind about where to shop, which companies to support or buy
stock in, and which ones to seek employment from all due to a disagreement over a company’s
diversity policies. Should this happen, it could lead to companies re-evaluating themselves and
working to better diversity and improvement, if not for equality, then at least to improve the net
income or the company’s reputation again. Future research could investigate how specific
companies that improved upon diversity and inclusion changed over time and whether there were
correlations that could be seen.
Conclusion
The Researcher found though men and women began as equals in history, the rise of
patriarchy during the Neolithic era set the foundation for male dominance in human society. The
Scholar examined women’s roles in World War II and found as women were called to head the
home front, the image of the working woman transformed into a confident and beautiful role
model. After World War II, men returned to the workforce pushing the women back into the
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE
41
home. The Researcher found during the 1950s to 1960s women were continuing working part
time or from the home and began supporting the Feminist Movement in hopes of equal job
opportunities and higher salaries.
The Researcher discussed how despite a higher academic achievement rate in comparison
to men, fewer women hold high managerial roles due to a metaphorical glass ceiling. The male
dominance in the workforce led to a lack of spousal support in the home, leading in turn to many
women bypassing higher job positions to take care of neglected home responsibilities. The
Literature stated upon entering the workforce, women fall back on the feminine behavior taught
in childhood, but find it does not help further a career. The Researcher found likeability is
negatively associated with female success and ambition. In addition to the psychological effects,
the Literature stated there are numerous economic and employment effects. In addition to the
wage gap between men and women, the stereotype of the domestic woman leads employers to
assume a working mother’s priority is the home. This assumption leads employers to be less
likely to hire and promote women, especially working mothers.
After examining other scholarly data, the Researcher gathered personal data through an
online survey in order to test a null hypothesis. The null stated when given a list of traits
commonly valued in executive working positions, a majority of working Texans will favor the
commonly female traits. The Researcher retained the null in regard to positive female traits but
rejected the null in regard to negative female traits.
The Researcher then conducted a case study reviewing multiple companies to deduce
whether a company’s accommodations of women had any correlation to the success rate of the
company and found those with more accommodations had higher net income, fewer complaints,
and, in some cases, a higher net worth.
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE
42
Male dominance in marriage has been prevalent throughout all of history supported
especially through religion; in most religions, women are taught to be subservient to a spouse to
some degree.. Multiple times in the Bible women are called to be submissive to their husband,
one example being 1 Timothy 2:11-14 stating women are to be quiet and submissive to man’s
authority as result of Eve being made second and having sinned first. As all research leads to
further research, the Scholar wanted to further explore this concept of male superiority in more
extreme cases. Domestic male dominance is proving to be a major problem in today’s society in
the form of domestic violence. Domestic violence can be seen in abuse both verbal and physical.
After studying male dominance in the workforce, the Scholar briefly wanted to research how and
why domestic violence occurs, specifically in the form of verbal and psychological abuse, and
what psychological effects does this abuse produce in women?
Remaining questions
In the United States, more than 1 in 3 women have been physically assaulted and/or
stalked by an intimate partner; in addition, 48.4% of women in the United Sates have
experienced some form of psychological aggression inflicted by an intimate partner (“Statistics”,
2015). In an abusive relationship, the dominant partner, usually the man, attempts to control the
submissive partner, the woman, by using physical and/or verbal abuse.
Origin and Driving Factors
The man’s desire to gain or maintain control over a woman can be rooted in the
individual’s background or culture (“The National”, 2015). As stated in the Review of Related
Literature, male dominance has always been present in society encouraging men to act “manly”
and show authority; this male dominance comes from the patriarchal values and attitude towards
traditional sex roles (Berg-Cross, 2005). Physical abuse often occurs when societal pressure
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE
43
causes a man to act upon society’s value of male dominance through physical acts (“The
National”, 2015). The man may enjoy the power and control he holds over the woman and will
threaten or use brute force or weapons in order to force a woman into submission as well as
forcibly engaging the woman in dangerous acts, such as drugs or alcohol (“The National”, 2015).
The man feels entitled to this superiority over the woman; the man has, after all, been told,
directly and indirectly, since childhood the male is stronger and more valued than females.
Mental instability factors into this superiority complex as well because a man may be too
emotionally impaired or imbalanced to maintain a healthy relationship. If the woman attempts to
leave, the woman fears the man may resort to aggressive actions such as stalking and/or assault.
By leaving, the woman takes away the man’s sense of power and superiority, which is something
the man does not want to happen (“The National”, 2015).
Verbal/Psychological Abuse
Domestic violence also manifests verbal abuse in which the man will demoralize the
woman to the point of psychologically scarring the woman. Verbal abuse goes hand in hand
with psychological abuse because the demoralizing words are directed towards the woman’s self-
esteem and sanity. A survey by the University of South Carolina, consisting of interviews with
234 psychologically and/or physically abused women, recorded 72% of the subjects admitted
emotional abuse having a more serious impact than physical abuse (Berg-Cross, 2005).
Psychological abuse through verbal abuse has multiple forms: manipulation, intimidation, and
denigration and domination are most common (Berg-Cross, 2005; Stonsy, 2008). For the
purpose of conciseness, the Researcher will focus on the psychological effects due to
denigration.
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE
44
As stated previously, in an abusive relationship the dominant partner, the man, attempts
to control the submissive partner, the woman, through the submissive partner’s self-esteem. To
break down the woman’s self-esteem, the abusive man will constantly criticize and devalue the
woman’s ideas, words, and actions (“The National”, 2015). Through continuous insult and
humiliation, the man will reduce the woman to a state of insecurity, completely dependent on
him (“The National”, 2015: Berg-Cross, 2005). The woman reaches a point where a severe lack
of confidence prevents the woman from leaving the relationship even after acknowledging the
abuse (Berg-Cross, 2005). Because the woman is unable to leave the relationship, the woman
supplements excuses for the abusive man’s behavior, such as attributing violence to drunkenness,
or blames the abuse on herself demoralizing herself even further (“The National”, 2015).
Gas Lighting
Gas-lighting is one form of domestic abuse combining both physical and verbal abuse; it
is used to manipulate a person by instilling doubt or insecurity. Before one can look into the
psychological effects of gas-lighting, one must first look into the history of gas-lighting and then
into how it is carried out.
The term “gas-lighting” originates from a 1940s film called “Gaslight” in which a
husband deceives his wife all for his own personal gain. In order to steal valuables from the
wife, the husband tricked the woman into doubting her sanity. Whenever the husband used the
gaslights to search for valuables, the gaslights in other parts of the house would dim thereby
confusing the wife. When the wife would complain of the oddly dimming or flickering lights,
the husband would dismiss her claims on the grounds of an active imagination. The husband led
the wife to doubt her sanity and was able to easily manipulate her (Luna, 2015; Breiners, 2012).
While the film brought gas-lighting to the public’s attention for a brief period, it was soon
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE
45
forgotten along with reality of gas-lighting as it digressed from the public’s eye. This lack of
attention resulted in gas-lighting being vastly unknown and unrecognizable to most of society.
Techniques/Symptoms
Gas-lighting can be carried out in a multitude of ways: discrediting, instilling doubt,
denying, twisting words and actions, and disorienting (Myles, 2015; Luna, 2015). The base
component of gas-lighting is discrediting, the act of convincing other people in addition to the
woman that the woman is unstable or crazy (Luna, 2015).
The first type of doubt the gas-lighter will instill is doubt of confidence; the man’s
assurance in his claims and actions will lead the woman to doubt her own thoughts and believe
the man instead (Luna, 2015). The man might do this through leaving out important details and
later claiming to have said them. Another type of doubt the gas-lighter will instill is trust where
the man will say or do things to purposely make the woman jealous or insecure, but deny it later
on (Myles, 2015). The third type of doubt the gas-lighter will create is an insecurity in abilities
or choices where the man will scoff or mock the woman’s opinions or thoughts making her feel
inferior to him (Myles, 2015).
Denial is another method of gas-lighting as the man will say or do something offensive or
abusive, such as laughing or scoffing but will blatantly deny all record of it telling the woman
she imagined it (Luna, 2015; Myles, 2015). Twisting words and actions to the gas-lighter’s favor
is another method commonly used (Myles, 2015).
Disorientation is the last method of gas-lighting: the man will secretly move an object
from its normal place then deny moving it or will claim the woman moved the object herself.
The man may claim the object she moved never moved too or has always been in the new spot
(Luna, 2015).
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE
46
Psychological Effects
The combination of self-doubt, insecurity, and confusion in the woman experiencing gas-
lighting or any other form of psychological abuse will lead to serious psychological effects, such
as insecurity (Luna, 2015). Insecurity in surroundings and self shows through the abused
woman’s constant feeling of being on edge or threatened and stems from the constant criticism
the abuser expresses in the woman’s abilities, opinions, and memory. A psychologically abused
woman tends to be very indecisive since every choice she makes is usually scoffed or critiqued
by the abuser; the consequence of this indecisiveness is the woman’s inclination to rely on other
people’s judgment thus creating anxiety (Luna, 2015). As paranoia and unease stem from the
disorientation, the woman stops trusting her surroundings (Luna, 2015).
The abused woman develops social anxiety due to the abuser breaking down and warping
the woman’s normal form of socialization through constant and ever changing moods swings
(Myles, 2015). Social anxiety causes the woman to question whether she is being too sensitive
or over-reacting. To avoid these questions along with those concerning the relationship with the
abusive partner, the woman will avoid socialization by withdrawing from relationships with
family and friends (Myles, 2015; Luna, 2015). An abused woman can become severely
depressed, not only from social anxiety and a lack of socialization with others, but also from
constant attempts to please the abuser while receiving only criticism and mockery (Stern, 2009).
Reasons to Stay
Even while being psychologically or physically abused, a woman will stay in an abusive
relationship due to the psychological impact the abuser inflicted. A woman may stay out of fear
of judgment, the fear of a loss of financial stability, fear of further violence, or a fear of
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE
47
independence due to a lack of confidence (“The National”, 2015). Through psychological abuse,
the abuser takes away all independence and mental stability of the victim.
The abused woman’s inability to function normally hinders the woman from leaving the
relationship. Pressured by the abuser into breaking off relationships, the victim has no real
anchor in the outside world.
Another common reason many women stay in abusive relationship is Stockholm
syndrome occurring when a victim develops and maintains empathetic feelings toward the
oppressor often in hope of receiving special treatment. In the context of a relationship,
Stockholm syndrome develops because the oppressor is kind and polite at first, and the woman
develops feelings for the nice, charming version of the abuser. Abusive tendencies emerge and
develop over time resulting in the victim realizing an abusive relationship has developed only
after developing feelings for the abuser. The abused woman loves the man but not the abuse; the
woman will do all she can to keep the man happy, viewing any acts of kindness as a sign to hope
the man will turn from abusive ways (“The National”, 2015). The woman does not realize she is
adopting a survival tactic often used by prisoners who will empathize with and try to appease a
captor in order to avoid further punishment. Like the prisoners, fear motivates the woman to
appease the abuser. The woman fears the violence but is in denial of the fear. The abuser’s
random acts of kindness encourage the denial giving false hope to the victim. The woman is also
in denial because the idea of fearing a loved one seems absurd and irrational (“The National”,
2015).
The victim forms a traumatic bond with the abuser in order to cope with the unstable
environment and the stress of the abuse. This delusion of a relationship allows the victim to
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE
48
reduce the feeling of fear. Stockholm syndrome increases the dependence on the abuser even
more and decreases the likelihood of the victim’s ability to leave (Louis, 2016).
Often times, an abusive relationship is subtle, gradually increasing in degree until the
victim is suddenly stranded in a relationship with no idea of how the abuse developed. The
abuser’s once charming persona transforms into erratic, even malicious behavior directed at
breaking down the victim’s willpower into total subservience. Once this abusive behavior
begins, the effects on the victim also begin increase in harm. Unless the victim ends the
relationship early on, the victim risks developing anxiety, depression, insanity, and Stockholm
syndrome. These psychological disorders continue to impact abused victims long after the end
of the abusive relationship and could potentially hinder victims from cultivating healthy
relationships in the future.
Biblical
After researching male dominance in the workforce, the Researcher wanted to know the Bible’s
stance on women’s equality. In 1 Corinthians 11: 11-12, Paul writes
“Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man
independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is
born of woman. But everything comes from God”.
Prior to these verses Paul alludes to the order of creation in Genesis with man coming first from
the dust and then woman from the man’s rib. Paul then acknowledges while man’s original
purpose was not to care for or be subservient to women but to bring glory to God, woman’s
original purpose was to be man’s helper. Paul, however, explains in verses 11-12 how neither
man nor woman can be without the other by the will of God. Even though the first woman came
from man, every man is born from woman; women should not be undervalued or men lauded
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE
49
because both are dependent on each other. Man and woman depend mutually on one another as
they do on Christ. Men and woman are made in God’s image and so are seen and loved equally
in His eyes. While Genesis is a popular Biblical reference used to justify male dominance and
superiority due to man coming first, these verses by Paul proves in Christ any disparity in
judgment based on gender is nonexistent. If people are called to follow God’s example, and God
sees men and women as equal, then people should be expected to do the same.
Many times in the Bible women are called to submit to and obey their husbands, but 1
Peter 5:5 says,
“In the same way, you who are younger, submit yourselves to your elders.
All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because,
‘God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble’”.
This verse shows how God not only calls women but also men to be submissive to one another.
Serving and humbling one’s self is a core belief of Christianity. God lifts up those who are
humble at heart and take on humility in order to serve others for this was Jesus’s mission, which
He passed on to His followers (Gender equality, 2016).
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE
50
References
The 1960s-70s American Feminist Movement: Breaking down barriers for women. (2015).
Tavaana. Retrieved November 29, 2015, from https://tavaana.org/en/content/1960s-70s-
american-feminist-movement-breaking-down-barriers-women
American Association of University Women. (2014). The simple truth about the gender pay
gap. American Association Of University Women. Retrieved September 29, 2015 from
Ebsco (ED546780)
A history of women in industry. (2007). National Women’s History Museum. Retrieved
November 30, 2015, from https://www.nwhm.org/online-exhibits/industry/2.htm
Berg-Cross, L. (2005). Intimate relationships, psychological abuse and mental health problems.
National Register of health Service Psychologists. Retrieved January 27, 2016, from
http://www.e-psychologist.org/index.iml?mdl=exam/show_article.mdl
Beyer, S. (1998). Gender differences in casual attributions by college students of performance on
course examinations. Current Psychology, 17, 346-358. Retrieved January 17, 2016 from
Ebsco (13922780)
Breines, J. (2012, April 16). Call me crazy: The subtle power of gaslighting. Psych your mind.
Retrieved February 26, 2016, from http://psych-your-mind.blogspot.com/2012/04/call-
me-crazy-subtle-power-of.html
Carnes, W. J., & Radojevich-Kelley, N. (2011). The effects of the glass ceiling on women in the
workforce: Where are they and where are they going?. Review Of Management
Innovation & Creativity, 4(10), 70-79. Retrieved from EBSCO (66136283)
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 51
Council of Economic Advisers. (October 14, 2014). Women’s participation in education and the
workforce. White house. Retrieved January 24, 2016, from
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/womens_slides_final.pdf
Cushing, L., & Drescher, T. (2009). "Rosie the Riveter" is not the same as "we can do it!". Docs
Populi. Retrieved December 7, 2015, from
http://www.docspopuli.org/articles/RosieTheRiveter.html
Dublin, T. (2015). Women and the early industrial revolution in the United States. The Gilder
Lehrman Institute of American History. Retrieved November 30, 2015, from
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/jackson-lincoln/essays/women-and-early-
industrial-revolution-united-states
Duiker, W., & Spielvogel, J. (2013). Early humans and the first civilizations. In World
History (7th ed., pp. 4-8). Boston, Massachusetts: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Eisenberg, T. D. (2010). Shattering the equal pay act's glass ceiling. Southern Methodist
University Law Review, 63. Social Science Research Network. Retrieved December 6,
2015 from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1521172
Fels, A. (2004). Do women lack ambition?. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 50. Retreived
September 29, 2015 from Ebsco (12774660)
Fernando, W. A., & Cohen, L. (2014). Respectable femininity and career agency: Exploring
paradoxical imperatives. Gender, Work & Organization, 21(2), 149-164.
doi:10.1111/gwao.12027
Gender equality. (2016). What the bible says. Retrieved February 22, 2016 from
http://whatthebiblesays.info/gender-equality/
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 52
Gleason, K. (2013, March 30). Balancing work and family after childbirth: A longitudinal
analysis. Journalist’s Resource. Retrieved September 29, 2015, from
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/economics/jobs/balancing-work-family-childbirth-
analysis
Groysberg, B., & Abrahams, R. (March, 2014). Manage your work, manage your life. Harvard
Business Review. Retrieved February 14, 2016, from https://hbr.org/2014/03/manage-
your-work-manage-your-life&cm_sp=Article-_-Links-_-End of Page Recirculation
Heilman, E. M., Wallen, S. A., Fuchs D., & Tamkins M. M. (2004). Penalties for success:
Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89(3), 416-427. Retrieved December 9, 2015 from Ebsco (13620402)
Hewlett, S. A. (2002). Executive women and the myth of having it all. Harvard Business Review.
Retrieved January 17, 2016, from https://hbr.org/2002/04/executive-women-and-the-
myth-of-having-it-all#
Hewlett, S. A., & Luce, C. B. (2005). Off ramps and on ramps: Keeping talented women on the
road to success. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved January 13, 2016, from
https://hbr.org/2005/03/off-ramps-and-on-ramps-keeping-talented-women-on-the-road-
to-success
Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & Lemmon, G. (2009). Bosses' perceptions of family-work conflict
and women's promotability: Glass ceiling effects. Academy of Management
Journal, 52(5), 939-957. doi:10.5465/amj.2009.44633700
Johns, M. L. (2013). Breaking the glass ceiling: Structural, cultural, and organizational barriers
preventing women from achieving senior and executive positions. Ahima. Retrieved
February 12, 2016, from http://perspectives.ahima.org/breaking-the-glass-ceiling-
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 53
structural-cultural-and-organizational-barriers-preventing-women-from-achieving-senior-
and-executive-positions/#.Vr5WaZMrKCQ
Louis, C. (2016). The effects of gaslighting in narcissistic victim syndrome. Narcissistic
Behavior. Retrieved February 5, 2017, from http://narcissisticbehavior.net/the-effects-of-
gaslighting-in-narcissistic-victim-syndrome/
Luna, A. (2015). You're not going crazy: How gaslighting erodes you sanity. Lonerwolf.
Retrieved February 26, 2016, from http://lonerwolf.com/gaslighting/
Mantell, R. (2011, March 1). More women go to college, but wage gap remains. Marketwatch.
Retrieved January 24, 2016, from http://www.marketwatch.com/story/more-women-go-
to-college-but-wage-gap-remains-2011-03-01
Mathis, S. (1994). Propaganda to mobilize women for World War II. Social Studies. Retrieved
November 29, 2015, from
http://www.socialstudies.org/system/files/publications/se/5802/580210.html
May, E. (2013). Women and work. PBS. Retrieved November 8, 2015, from
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/interview/tupperware-may/
McGinn, K. L., and Tempest, N. (Januaray 18, 2000). Heidi Roizen. Harvard Business School
Case 800228. Clubhost. Retrieved January 17, 2016, from
http://clubhost.hbssanantonio.com/documents/Kathleen_L_McGinn_Bio.pdf
Myles, A. (2015, August 17). Gaslighting: The mind game everyone should know about.
Elephant Journal. Retrieved February 26, 2016, from
http://www.elephantjournal.com/2015/08/gaslighting-the-mind-game-everyone-should-
know-about/
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 54
The national domestic violence hotline. (2015). The Hotline. Retrieved January 28, 2016, from
http://www.thehotline.org/resources/statistics/
P., S., & Thomas, I. (1995). Fear of success in relation to sex role identity and self-esteem in
women. Psychological Studies, 40. Academia. Retrieved Januarary 13, 2016, from
http://www.academia.edu/6232008/Fear_of_success_in_relation_to_sex_role_identity_an
d_self-esteem_in_women
Partners in winning the war: American women in World War II. (2007). National Women’s
History Museum. Retrieved November 8, 2015, from https://www.nwhm.org/online-
exhibits/partners/1.htm
Sacket, L. A., & Saunders, D. G. (1999). The impact of different forms of psychological abuse
on battered women. Violence and Victims, 14(1), 1-13. Deep blue. Retrieved January 26,
2016, from http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/51466/The Impact of
Different Forms of Psych AbuseSackettSaunders.pdf?sequence=1
Sandberg, S. (2013). Lean in: Women, work, and the will to lead. New York: Random House,
Inc.
Stern, R. (2009, May 19). Are you being gaslighted? Psychology Today. Retrieved February 26,
2016, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/power-in-relationships/200905/are-
you-being-gaslighted
Stone, P. (2007). Opting out? Why women really quit careers and head home. Berkley:
University of California Press.
Stosny, S. (2008, August 26). Effects of emotional abuse: It hurts when I love. Psychology
Today. Retrieved January 27, 2016, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/anger-
in-the-age-entitlement/200808/effects-emotional-abuse-it-hurts-when-i-love
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 55
Strayer, R. (2010). First civilizations. In Ways of the World: A brief global history with
sources (pp. 62-97). Boston, Massachusetts: Bedford/St Martin's.
Tajlili, M. H. (2014). A framework for promoting women's career intentionality and work-life
integration. Career Development Quarterly, 62(3), 254-267. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-
0045.2014.00083.x.
Taylor, P., Morin, R., Cohn, D., Clark, A., & Wang, W. (2008). A paradox in public attitudes:
Men or women: Who’s the better leader? Pew research center social and demographic
trends report. Pew Research Center. Retrieved December 6, 2015 from:
http://pewsocialtrends.org/files/2010/10/genderleadership.pdf.
Tolman, D. L., & Porche, M. V. (2000). The adolescent femininity ideology scale. Psychology
Of Women Quarterly, 24(4), 365. Retrieved January 17, 2016, from Ebsco (4071385)
Tomei, M., Olney, S., & Oelz, M. (2013). Equal pay: An introductory guide. Switzerland:
International Labour Office. Retrieved March 19, 2017, from
http://arabtradeunion.org/sites/default/files/Equal%20Pay%20-
%20An%20introductory%20guide.compressed.pdf
Trueman, C. (2015, March 5). Medieval women. The History Learning Site. Retrieved
November 18, 2015, from http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/medieval-
england/medieval-women/
Ware, S. (2015). Women and the Great Depression. The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American
History. Retrieved November 30, 2015, from https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-
era/great-depression/essays/women-and-great-depression
Weigel, M. (2013, October 20). Women, work and work/life balance: Research roundup.
Journalist’s Resource. Retrieved September 30, 2015, from
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 56
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/gender-society/women-work-research-
roundup
Wood, M. (2010). 6.6 The women's movement. Learn NC. Retrieved November 29, 2015, from
http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-postwar/6055
Wunder, H., & Whittle, J. (2010, September 23). Women's work in early modern europe. Jesus
College. Retrieved December 6, 2015, from
http://www2.statsvet.uu.se/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=7/NqIk2/iNk=&tabid=3724&langu
age=en-US
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 57
Appendix I: Survey Questions
1. Age
a. 18-24
b. 25-34
c. 35-44
d. 45-54
e. 55-64
f. 65+
2. Race/Ethnicity
a. American Indian or Alaskan
Native
b. Asian or Pacific Islander
c. Black or African American
d. Hispanic or Latino
e. White/ Caucasian
f. other
3. Gender
a. Male
b. Female
4. Highest Level of Education
a. Some High School, no
diploma
b. High School Diploma or
Equivalent (e.g. GED)
c. Some college credit, no
diploma
d. Associate’s degree
e. Bachelor’s degree
f. Master’s degree
g. Professional
degree/Doctorate degree
5. Employment
a. Employed full-time
b. Employed part-time
c. Not currently employed
d. Homemaker
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 58
e. Retired f. Student
6. On a scale of 1-10, rank the traits below according to how important/valuable they are to
you in executive leadership positions (1 being the most important & 10 being least).
Please do not repeat a ranking.
a. Good social skills
b. Ambitious
c. Collaborative
d. Direct
e. Supportive/Mentoring
f. Risk-taking
g. Willing to Compromise
h. Assertive
i. Honesty
j. Confident
7. On a scale of 1-8, rank the traits below according to how tolerable/acceptable you find
them in positions of executive leadership (1 being most tolerable & 8 being the least
tolerable). Please do not repeat a ranking.
a. Emotional
b. Stubborn
c. Manipulative
d. Aggressive
e. Passive
f. Arrogant
g. Cold
h. Competitive
8. Which Gender would you prefer for a boss?
a. Male
b. Female
c. No Preference
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 59
Appendix II: Survey Results
1. Age:
18-24 (14)
25-34 (11)
35-44 (13)
45-44 (12)
45-54 (7)
55-64 (7)
65+ (3)
2. Race/Ethnicity
American Indian or Alaskan Native (0)
Asian or Pacific Islander (1)
Black or African American (1)
Hispanic or Latino (2)
White/ Caucasian (54)
Other (2)
3. Gender
Female (35)
Male (25)
4. Highest Level of Education
Some High School, no diploma (3)
High School Diploma or Equivalent (e.g. GED) (4)
Some college credit, no diploma (10)
Associate’s degree (1)
Bachelor’s degree (19)
Master’s degree (20)
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 60
Professional degree/Doctorate degree (3)
5. Employment
Employed full-time (42)
Employed part-time (7)
Not currently employed (2)
Homemaker (1)
Retired (3)
Student (5)
6. Positive trait rankings (rank, frequency of rank):
Good social skills: (1:5, 2:7, 3:8, 4:10, 5:7, 6:6, 7:2, 8:9, 9:4, 10:2)
Ambitious: (1:3, 2:4, 3:2, 4:11, 5:4, 6:3, 7:9, 8:5, 9:8, 10:11)
Collaborative: (1:5, 2:9, 3:12, 4:3, 5:5, 6:6, 7:5, 8:4, 9:5, 10:6)
Direct: (1:3, 2:5, 3:2, 4:10, 5:6, 6:4, 7:11, 8:4, 9:9, 10:4)
Supportive/Mentoring: (1:5, 2:7, 3:4, 4:5, 5:12, 6:7, 7:4, 8:5, 9:6, 10:4)
Risk-taking: (1:4, 2:4, 3:6, 4:3, 5:5, 6:10, 7:6, 8:6, 9:5, 10:8)
Willing to Compromise: (1:2, 2:1, 3:7, 4:5, 5:12, 6:13, 7:8, 8:4, 9:3, 10:4)
Assertive: (1:3, 2:5, 3:7, 4:6, 5:3, 6:3, 7:6, 8:12, 9:8, 10:5)
Honesty: (1:23, 2:7, 3:6, 4:1, 5:2, 6:5, 7:3, 8:3, 9:4, 10:6)
Confident: (1:6, 2:11, 3:5, 4:6, 5:4, 6:2, 7:6, 8:7, 9:8, 10:5)
7. Negative trait rankings (rank, frequency of rank)
Emotional: (1:12, 2:11, 3:7, 4:6, 5:4, 6:6, 7:4, 8:10)
Stubborn: (1:2, 2:11, 3:6, 4:9, 5:9, 6:11, 7:9, 8:3)
Manipulative: (1:3, 2:1, 3:8, 4:1, 5:6, 6:6, 7:10, 8:24)
Aggressive: (1:0, 2:9, 3:14, 4:15, 5:2, 6:10, 7:9, 8:2)
Passive: (1:1, 2:7, 3:8, 4:10, 5:13, 6:7, 7:10, 8:9)
Arrogant: (1:1, 2:5, 3:7, 4:7, 5:12, 6:13, 7:8, 8:7)
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 61
Cold: (1:3, 2:9, 3:7, 4:10, 5:13, 6:7, 7:9, 8:2)
Competitive: (1:38, 2:7, 3:3, 4:4, 5:1, 6:0, 7:0, 8:7)
8. Preferred Boss Gender
Male (17)
Female (7)
Not Preferred (36)
MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 62
Appendix III: Companies Accommodations, Complaints, and Lawsuits
Companies’ Accommodations, Complaints, and Lawsuits
Companies: Johnson & Johnson Wal-mart Microsoft Bank of
America
21st
Century
Fox
Female Empowerment
Programs
X X X
Schedule Flexibility X
Mentorship X X X X
Continued Education X X X
Gender Discrimination
Complaints
X X
Lawsuits concerning
accommodations
X X